Re: The flush: Is it really what it seems?

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Terry. What you say makes perfect sense. I also had questions

about this thing.

I'm glad there are more people than me who'd like scientific evidence

proving that the stones in the toilet are in fact gallstones. It's not

rocket science.

Terry wrote:

>

> I read with some interest two recent posting. One from Bill and one

> from , both of whom drew into question the validity of the

> gallbladder flush as a mechanism for removing stones. As a long term

> gallbladder sufferer and as someone who has done many flushes, I have

> come to the same conclusion. Namely, that the " stones " produced by

> the flush are actually saponified oil. If you consider that when

> doing a flush you have followed an alkalysing diet (the apple juice)

> for several days and then you introduce a large quantity of oil into

> your gut, you have just about the right conditions for that oil to be

> saponified. The resulting " stones " have all the characteristics of

> what you would expect from saponified olive oil. There would be a

> very simple way of proving this and given the interest in this list

> and in other places I am surprised that no one has had these " stones "

> analysed by a reputable laboratory. Or at least I can find no reports

> of this having been done. If the " stones " contained significant

> levels of cholesterol then one would be reassured that they were

> actual stones whereas if they consisted of oleates and stearates then

> they would be simple artifacts of the flush process.

>

> One circumstantial argument often put forward to support the " stone "

> theory is that a flush does not always produce " stones " . If the

> process was simply the coagulation of the oil then you would expect

> all flushes to produce the same result. However, if you consider the

> complexity of the reactions going on in your gut it is likely that

> the smallest difference in diet could influence the conditions

> necessary for saponification to occur. Hence, it is unlikely that any

> two flushes would be the same. This has indeed been my experience

> with flushes. I have also had no significant change in my gallbladder

> condition as a result of doing the flushes.

>

> A second point I would like to make is that, like , I can find

> no corroborating evidence that magnesium causes the common bile duct

> to dilate. So I have my doubts about a 3cm stone being able to pass

> down this duct or at least not without significant pain. The sort of

> pain that would have you in hospital on a narcotic painkiller of some

> sort.

>

> Having said all this, please don't interpret it as negative comment.

> I have been fighting gallbladder disease for some years now and have

> always been willing to try any suggestions. I think I've tried most

> things discussed in this list. Tho' I am able to manage the

> condition I still occassionally have a bad attack. Sadly I have come

> to the conclusion that none of these remedies work for me and that

> ultimately one day I'll have to face the reality of having surgery.

> I'm trying to defer that day as long as possible.

>

> Terry

>

> Collected testimonials:

> http:///messages/gallstones-testimonials

> You are receiving this email because you elected to subscribe to the

gallstonesegroups. To unsubscribe:

Mailto:gallstones-unsubscribeegroups

> To subscribe again: Mailto:gallstones-subscribeegroups

> To change status to digest: Mailto:gallstones-digestegroups

> To change status to normal: Mailto;gallstones-normalegroups

> By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR yourself!

> List Archives: http:///messages/gallstones

> Web Sites: http://home.online.no/~dusan/gallstones/

> Have a nice day !

[Guest guest]

For 2 /12 years I have used the " flush + health " approach to managing

my gallbladder. I have sought to identify what is inside of

the " greenies " that come out without success. I have come to a

number of conclusions:

1) The " greenies " are most likely not gallstones... but may be liver

stones.

2) Gallstones may be passing, most likely on a first or second flush

and not picked up by the flushee. These stones would be most

likely " brownish " in color like those found in Dale's photo of his

flushed stones.

3) Many of those I know have received tremendous benefit from the

flush. Two individuals I gave the flush recipe to were scheduled for

operations, but flushed instead. Now almost two yaers later neither

of them have had ANY symptoms of a gb problem. Unfortunately, they

even eat whatever they want!

4) The rest of us have recieved significant benefit from the flush.

I can go 3-7 months without having any symptoms. Currently it has

baeen 2 1/2 months since my last flush and I have felt the best

ever! Even shrimp cannot get my gb to act up!

5) The focus on " large " stones is incorrect. It is the small stones

that CAN pass into the ducts that cause the majority of attacks. The

large stones are often " silent. " When one does a flush, huge amounts

of green bile (forming greenies) is expelled from the liver and gb.

The extra push of bile expells sludge and many calcium chrystals that

form the neucleus of the " stone. " This is most likely why we find

great relief after a flush. The building blocks for making the small

stones are expelled.

6) I believe that many small " stones " are expelled in the flush

process, especially the first and second flush. The flush must

strain their stools to find the little black and brown " stones. "

These are what should be analysed by a lab.

Conclusion: The flush MUST benefit the flushee in either

expelling " stones " or sludge or calcium chrystals. The results are

proof of its effectiveness. Not all with gain permanent relief, not

all will gain months of relief, but all should try the flush as it is

a simple approach to health and keeping one's gb.

ken